Iowa Caucasus-Mike Huckabee

[NordicLutheran]

Well it's that time of the year, the Iowa Caucasus. I'm going to support Mike Huckabee on the third! He's getting my support for three reasons. 1. He's a strong Christian leader. 2. He is staunchly pro-life. 3. And most importantly he's not liberal! Thoughts about Huckabee?

[dinkime]

i was going for huckabee, but we have friends from arkansas and they told us some of the things that have not come out about him (raising taxes, what his family is like, etc)............so now i am not so sure, but i have until super tuesday to decide

[Jim47]

I thuink once again we are faced with a decision of picking the best, or lesser of two evils :) I supported Fred Thompson early on but now I'm not sure if he is even made of the right material.

I know this may not be an issue for many of you but I am anti gun control. I have always been an avid sportsman, but it goes far deeper then that. In every country where they have taken guns away, crime has grown by leaps and bounds. The reason why is now the criminals know that no on can defend themselves. Aside from that, if we are ever attacked by an evil nation on our turf, the more armed citizens we have the better we are able to protect our families.

[seajoy]

What Jim said. :thumbsup: :)

[RadMan]

I like William Tecumseh Sherman's quote. "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." Sounds like something Pat Paulsen would say. It think I'll put Pat on a write-in on my ballot :) He finally died but I still think he would make an good absentee President. Better than most of the candidates running right now.

Words of wisdom for Pat Paulsen:

“All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian”

“I've upped my standards. Now, up yours.”

"If Iowa is the 'heart' land, what part of the human body is Los Angeles? "

"Assuming either the Left Wing or the Right Wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles." (http://www.quotes-famous.com/quotes/Pat-Paulsen/31621.html)

[WildStrawberry]

I like Mike for several reasons but I also like Fred. *sigh* So many choices. *G* I've been hearing quite a bit about Ron Paul...does anyone know anything about him?

I agree with Jim. Gun control SOUNDS like a good idea but in reality it's not. If you take guns away from the law abiding people, then only criminals will have guns. Not a good thing at all.

Kae

[Lupinus]

I'm with Fred. But if Mike gets it I certianly wont cry

[NordicLutheran]

I happen to know more than a handfull of democrats who want Ron Paul to be president. I guess the rest of the country is different than Iowa because Fred Thompson is not even a real choice here. I would be fine with all the Republican runners now except for Romney. I take into account a nominee's religion. I don't hate mormonism I just think that if he got in to office it would break the divide between mormonism and Christianity in the public eye. Also I know quite a bit about mormonism and what they originally thought about marriage and non-whites. A common example of this is that they think Jesus was white and he brought a tribe of white Israelites to be the first Americans. I can't vote for someone who can honestly subscribe to this belief.

[IowaLutheran]

I'll just be glad when the ads are done.

[2theBone]

Huckabee has a lot of appealing features, not the least of which is his name......which is far funnier than ANY other candidate.

You can call him Huckleberry, Chuckleberry, Upchuckaberry, Huckabooby, Badluckabee, Muckabee, Suckabee, Hockeypuckabee......oh, the list goes on and on and I haven't touched on the X-rated versions.

Plus.....there's the Fundamentalist Christian aspect with the almost limitless potential for humor offered there.

The late-night talk comedians would be swamped with material......he would be a GIFT for them.

Plus, with Huckabee you get the spectacle of a 250 pound old man pretending to jog.......and you can take bets on when he will drop.

I'd say Huckabee is by FAR my first choice for a Republican candidate.

McCain, Romney and the others pale in comparison.

[RadMan]

Somebody belonging to the Green party liking Huckabee? That's interesting.

[2theBone]

Hey.....you can't argue with that aroma of a winner.

Huckabee floats to the top amidst that pile of Republican candidates.

[NordicLutheran]

Hahahah I like Suckabee....that's really funny.

[2theBone]

Idunno.....Hockeypuckabee was pretty darn good.

[Tofferer]

Unfortunately, we can make all the jokes we want, but that doesn't change the facts. We need to carefully exam each candidate and what they believe and stand for. Ron Paul opposed the current war in Iraq. As I understand it, Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS. On the democrats side, Clinton wants socialized health care that managed by the government. Obama wants to impose sharia law. Fact is, we don't have any real outstanding candidates. I am going to continue to watch and see. Right now I am on the fence with Huckabee and Paul, though I am hoping for a strong independent or conservative minority party candidate to surface, though I certainly won't hold my breath.

[2theBone]

Obama wants to impose Sharia law:D :D :D :D :D

Lord preserve us.

[ricg]

Where did you hear Obama wants to impose islamic law. I thought he was, at least nominally, a Christian.

I don't support Huckabee because, as Bob Dole said, he's too negative on the war, which is why, despite the fact that I disagree with him on many things, I have to support McCain.

[Tofferer]

I am glad you think that funny. Personally, I can not begin to express how badly that scares me.

[2theBone]

So, you're serious?

Now, THAT IS scary!

[Tofferer]

I thought he was, at least nominally, a Christian.




Not even.

[DaRev]

Do y'all know what Obama's middle name is?

[Tofferer]

I do believe its Al.

[DaRev]

Barak Hussein Obama.

[IowaLutheran]

His father was Muslim and his mother divorced him when they were two.

He is not Muslim.

He does not want to impose sharia law.

[Tofferer]

Defend him if you want. I am out of this thread.

[2theBone]

Maybe because you suspected that this would soon arrive?

:D

Snopes says "False" on Muslim allegations about Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

[RadMan]

Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/print.html), Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).


And Obama has a "born-again" affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law (http://www.law.emory.edu/IFL/legal/kenya.htm), when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/print.html):


http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

[JoeCatch]

On the democrats side, Clinton wants socialized health care that managed by the government.

False.

Sen. Clinton's plan will not put the management of health care under the purview of the government. Hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and private practices will continue to operate under their own management and administration. The government will not be stepping in to run any medical facility that it already doesn't (e.g., VA hospitals, etc.).

If you look at the specifics of her proposal, her policy on health care is essentially the same as G.W. Bush's energy policy: a huge handout to corporate interests. Her proposal is to make insurance mandatory and, with the exception of low-income households, place the financial burden of doing so directly onto private citizens. Aside from the mostly-unfunded mandate, the only new government involvement in health care that Sen. Clinton proposes is allowing all citizens to enroll in the same plan that's available to her and her colleagues. But those who choose to do so will still be paying premiums and deductibles just like enrollees of any private plan, so this hardly amounts to a handout either.

Besides, the mandate will only ensure that enrollment in private insurance goes up, thus increasing the earnings of for-profit insurance providers and decreasing the already dwindling spending power of average Americans. Sen. Clinton's proposal will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to certain people based on age or preexisting medical conditions, but it will do nothing to control the inevitable increase in costs to all enrollees that will result if such open enrollment is introduced in an unregulated market. Moreover her plan will do nothing to curb private insurance providers' tendency to deny specific medical treatments even to those who are covered, under the guise of such treatments being "experimental" or "unlikely to be successful." In short, there's absolutely nothing socialist about her policy at all.

Sen. Clinton's current plan bears hardly any resemblance at all to the plan that she introduced in 1993-94; in fact, she took her cues on it from that bastion of socialism, the Heritage Foundation (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070920_hillarys_healthy_turnaround/). In fact the only candidates in the Democratic primaries who are proposing a single-payer system are longshots Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. But I suppose labeling a handout to private, for-profit health insurance providers "socialist" just proves that irrational fear of socialism is still alive and well in America.

[BigNorsk]

I will defend Obama for the Bible does not say it is wrong to defend a man but it does say it is wrong to bear false witness.

Obama is not a Muslim and there is absolutely no evidence except in the minds of racist hatemongers that he wants to impose Sharia law. Actually, I doubt if even they believe it, just intend to use people's ignorance as cover to influence the election. It's unfortunate that people assume from his name that he must be Muslim and so the rumormongers have an easier time of spreading their falsehoods.

I see things that say he was sworn in on a Koran too. Which is also false. Maybe you don't know it but Senators and Representatives do not use any book or scripture when being sworn into office. Many of them then retire to the photo salon where they take pictures representing their being sworn in using things like bibles, but those pictures are not the actual swearing in. In Obama's reenactment, he used a bible. If you hunt, you can find copies of the photos and even videos of Dick Cheney swearing in his cousin, Obama.

Please, if you don't want to vote for him that's fine. I assume that everyone didn't know that Obama wasn't a Muslim and they thought it was true about the Sharia law. Well, now you know that those things are false.

There are a lot of such things floating around. People who say Bush is going to create a crises and impose martial law, just like others who said Clinton was going to do it 7 years ago.

I frankly don't see a single candidate who looks like their intention is to impose religion on anyone. This year that seems to be restricted to some of the voters.

Marv

[JoeCatch]

Do y'all know what Obama's middle name is?

Barak Hussein Obama.

So what?

Where did you hear Obama wants to impose islamic law. I thought he was, at least nominally, a Christian.

Not even.

Sen. Obama is, at least nominally, a Christian. He is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. I won't attempt to speak for what his actual theological views are, but he is certainly at least a nominal Christian.

Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/print.html), Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).

And Obama has a "born-again" affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law (http://www.law.emory.edu/IFL/legal/kenya.htm), when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/print.html):

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

Sen. Obama never attended a Muslim school in Indonesia; Turow's piece does not claim that he did. Sen. Obama actually attended a Roman Catholic school for three years in Indonesia, and a public school (the one that's commonly mislabeled a "Muslim school") for a year. But I don't know of any Muslim schools where students are allowed to celebrate Christmas or teachers allowed to wear miniskirts.

There is no indication that Sen. Obama's mother's second husband was a Muslim. Sen. Obama's early life (his schooling, his stepfather's religiosity, etc.) are all detailed in this article from the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story,0,7180545.story). The facts bear little resemblance to the tale his opponents have spun about him.

Debbie Schlussel is, as far as I'm concerned, a confirmed bigot. I would not trust anything that she has to say about Muslims or Islam; she's hardly an unbiased source of information on such matters. In fact, she's not a source of facts at all, but only of opinion.

[BigNorsk]

As for health care. I thought Clinton's current proposal was quite similar to what Romnee did in Massachusetts. Not a single payer system.

Marv

[RadMan]

Indeed, even the Associated Press, not exactly a bastion of conservative eager-beavers, found some compelling evidence, including this nugget, from a news story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html) dated January 24, 2007:

Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.

[BigNorsk]

As far as Huckabee, he's not perfect but who is, he's sure riding a wave right now that seems to be caused by the huge number of Republicans who didn't want to hold their nose and vote so early in the process.

Really he's probably kind of the flip side of Obama. Personable people who come across as if they aren't reading the latest poll before saying something.

Marv

[JoeCatch]

Indeed, even the Associated Press, not exactly a bastion of conservative eager-beavers, found some compelling evidence, including this nugget, from a news story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html) dated January 24, 2007:

Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.

Yes, that last sentence is the real kicker here. Everybody who enrolled in the school was required to identify with one of the five state-sanctioned religions. So, for Sen. Obama, it made sense that he should have been identified as a Muslim since that was, at least nominally, the religion of his stepfather. But even his stepfather was, according to those who knew him, pretty much non-practicing, and there's no evidence at all that I'm aware of that Sen. Obama himself was ever a practicing Muslim. If his parents had to choose a religion under which to register him, Islam made more sense than any of the other options; a non-practicing stepfather was more of a connection to Islam than he had to any of the other religions his parents could have checked off, after all.

I wouldn't have any problem with him being a practicing Muslim if he were one, but the fact remains that no evidence has been produced showing that he ever was. And certainly, as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ today, Sen. Obama can hardly be credibly linked to Islam, much less to any desire to impose Sharia on the United States. That's still just typical, bigoted Debbie Schlussel hysteria. The only real issue here is that his opponents on the right have latched on to these tenuous-at-best scraps linking Obama to Islam in an attempt to impugn him and his suitability for the presidency. I think it's absolutely shameful that so many Americans would refuse to vote for a candidate because he's a Muslim, and that so many can be so easily turned off to Obama's candidacy based on mere accusations that he might, at some point, have been a Muslim.

[NordicLutheran]

Seriously how can anyone be Lutheran and a democrat at the same time? People who are pro-abortion are filth. There really is no other option for someone who is serious about life and more importantly Christ.

[2theBone]

People who are pro-abortion are filth.

Not so. Actually it is the people who are anti-choice that are filth.

[DaRev]

People who are pro-abortion are filth.

I wouldn't use the word "filth", although abortion on demand is a disgusting concept. People who believe that way are seriously misled and need our prayers and instruction as to why it is murder.

[DaRev]

Not so. Actually it is the people who are anti-choice that are filth.

Well I guess I'm filth then because I am VERY anti-"choice" when it comes to abortion on demand. The outright murder of innocent children as a "choice" is a disgusting concept.

[2theBone]

I just wanted to give him a little taste of his own medicine so he could see how it feels.

Maybe he'll learn to behave......after all, he's only 19, and one really can't expect too much......but maybe he can learn.

Maybe.

[DaRev]

I just wanted to give him a little taste of his own medicine so he could see how it feels.

Maybe he'll learn to behave......after all, he's only 19, and one really can't expect too much......but maybe he can learn.

Maybe.

But there are better ways of doing it than mimicking him. It doesn't make you any better.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

*sigh* None of the candidates are conservative enough for me.

Giuliani is great on national security and foreign policy, but is way too liberal on social and economic issues.

Huckabee is staunchly pro-life, and I love that, but he's clueless on foreign policy ("I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night") and he's a big spender.

I can't even pin down what Mitt Romney believes.

Ron Paul is brilliant on economic issues, but is way too idealistically libertarian on social and foreign issues to even be viable (anybody else see the Glenn Beck interview tonight?).

And I loved Fred Thompson on pretty much all counts, but he ain't got the stuff anymore.

I'll vote for whoever's Republican, because better them than Hillary or Obama. But man, what a depressing primary.

[DaRev]

Wouldn'y it be great if we could carve off the parts we like of each one and create the ideal candidate? :D

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Haha! I wish.

His name would be Theodore Milhouse Reagan....

[DaRev]

Haha! I wish.

His name would be Theodore Milhouse Reagan....

^_^

[NordicLutheran]

I just wanted to give him a little taste of his own medicine so he could see how it feels.

Maybe he'll learn to behave......after all, he's only 19, and one really can't expect too much......but maybe he can learn.

Maybe.


Filth was too strong of a word, but honestly we're supposed to expect much from a deist? Reject the Trinity much?

[Edial]

I like Giulliani ...
Put the stones away please. :)

I find him to be a very strong leader at a time of crisis.
The way he handled 9/11 as the mayor of NYC (I'm from NY) was excellent.
And the way he cleaned up NYC of crime and made it one of the safest big cities is a minor miracle in my book.
His actions against the Mafia were also impressive.

He has a sober view of the Muslem governments. I liked the way he immediately returned a $1 million "gift" from one of the shieks right after 9/11 after that leader began making comments that Israel (one of our important allies) was somehow at fault, or something.

I do not see this terrorirst conflict going away any time soon.
At a time of war we need a war president.
Or at least the one whom Moslem states would be afraid of.

I do not think any of the guys above qualify ... even McCain.
Yes, McCain. Although he was a POW his views disturb me.

At a time of a political correctness he said that "water torture" should not be allowed. (And that's the extreme type of interrogation that we do).
While at the same time we see medieval type of torture instruments on TV that are being used by the Arab states. I do not trust him at a time of war.

The problem with Bush I think is his inherent conflict of interest with the Arab states concerning oil.
However, despite of this he has done a good job.

Giulliani also has a great chance of winning NYC, a hard task for a Republican candidate.

Concerning abortion, Giulliani is to make it less available. (I do not expect anything more of someone who is a Christian sympathizer). Besides, it is the Supreme Court who makes these decisions.

Concerning his personal life. He divorced his wife and married another woman. I always liked Donna Hanover, his first wife. However, after she had done that theater show with an obsene name "...... monologue" I understood that she was strange.
Also, looking at his present wife, she is not a raving beauty, so I do not think Giulliani has a weakness for women.

Concerning his health.
This bothers me. When he ran against Hillary Clinton for Senator he got knocked out with cancer and quit the race.
Now, he somehow disappeared and was in a hospital with a flu. I don't know if it was a flu.

However, historically speaking I am bad at evaluating presidents.

Long time ago I even liked Carter. :):)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[2theBone]

Filth was too strong of a word, but honestly we're supposed to expect much from a deist?

Hmmmmm.......it was a Lutheran that first used the nasty word.

No reason to criticize the Deist who returned your vile remark.

I hope you have learned to refrain from such in the future.

[PreachersWife2004]

Let's keep the personal insults out of this, please.

[LutheranChick]

I like Mike Huckabee. In fact, I plan on going to the caucus tomorrow night - only the 2nd time I have ever gone. (Yeah, shame on me!)

[BigNorsk]

Seriously how can anyone be Lutheran and a democrat at the same time? People who are pro-abortion are filth. There really is no other option for someone who is serious about life and more importantly Christ.

Maybe you could explain why the Republicans seem to be missing the vast majority of their Down's syndrom babies? Don't confuse public positions with practice, and what could be more proabortion than having one?

I'm probably a little biased against the Republicans because it's an issue I've followed pretty closely in my own state. When power was somewhat split Republicans made it a very big deal. When Republicans got supermajorities in both our house and senate and the Governorship which has been a decade now. The issue disappeared. Republican were strong supporters of prolife when it came to campaigning and wresting power, but once given the power, they have just pleaded that they are powerless and unable to do anything.

That's a really strange position. Because Roe V Wade said that abortions cannot be restricted in the first trimester, they can be restricted in the second, and they can be outlawed in the third.

Our state hasn't followed that and outlawed third trimester abortions, much less restricted second or even third trimester abortions.

So you see, locally here where I'm most familiar, abortion has been all hat and no cowboy.

When you look at abortion rates, only the so called extreme right of the Republicans and the extreme left of the Democrats vary in their rates of abortion.

As for appointing strict constructionists to supposedly overturn Roe v Wade. That's fantasy land. There is no place to find life beginning at conception for a strict constructionist. The Constitution in no way recognizes that life begins at conception. Matter of fact, based on how it figures representation and such, it's pretty clear that constitutionally, life begins at birth. If life began at birth, it would count them in the census and figuring representation, but it doesn't.

In any case the Justices in Roe v Wade, studied every tradition that went into our Constitution. None, not a single one, had life beginning at conception. The most conservative was the Catholic canon law of the time in which life begin 40 days after conception for boys and 80 days after conception for girls. Since then, Catholics have decided that life begins at conception. But the new tradition doesn't figure into the Constitution. The one of Thomas Aquinas does.

I would suggest not paying too much attention to the version of truth someone who wants to get your vote and money tells you.

I would be interested though in hearing your opinion. If a ban on abortion is not to be just window dressing. Several things would need to be done. First would be the reporting of all positive pregnancy results, and health care workers would also need to be required to report probably pregnancies like they are now for abuse. Also, all women of child bearing age leaving the country would need to be tested for pregnancy so that people couldn't just travel and abort. And all pregnancies not resulting in live births would need to be investigated by the coroner (not necessarily in great depth in most cases) in other words a death would need to be treated like a death.

There is also the problem that procedures like a D & C rely entirely on the word of the doctor as to whether or not it is an abortion. Many abortions are now done and never called an abortion. How would you know whether or not a D & C was an abortion? Require all "tissue" to be forwarded to the coroner?

I just think of when I was young and abortions were illegal and all those prominent Republican families who's daughters left town for a few days for an abortion. Not a single one was ever prosecuted legally very few persecuted socially. Now I doubt if they'd have to do that, many family doctors would "help out" prominent families. At least in the world I live in. Maybe in yours people are all treated the same.

Would you also outlaw birth control pills and other medications because they could be used as abortifacients?

I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Think people would go for that, or should we just pass a law that anyone with sufficient money is just free to ignore? There's some value in that I suppose, but I'd prefer to save lives.

Probably best to pm or start a thread where abortion can be discussed.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

Factcheck has it's Whoppers of the year out at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2007.html

Just a few political claims having to do with the Presidential election.

Marv

[DaRev]

Maybe you could explain why the Republicans seem to be missing the vast majority of their Down's syndrom babies? Don't confuse public positions with practice, and what could be more proabortion than having one?

I'm probably a little biased against the Republicans because it's an issue I've followed pretty closely in my own state. When power was somewhat split Republicans made it a very big deal. When Republicans got supermajorities in both our house and senate and the Governorship which has been a decade now. The issue disappeared. Republican were strong supporters of prolife when it came to campaigning and wresting power, but once given the power, they have just pleaded that they are powerless and unable to do anything.

That's a really strange position. Because Roe V Wade said that abortions cannot be restricted in the first trimester, they can be restricted in the second, and they can be outlawed in the third.

Our state hasn't followed that and outlawed third trimester abortions, much less restricted second or even third trimester abortions.

So you see, locally here where I'm most familiar, abortion has been all hat and no cowboy.

When you look at abortion rates, only the so called extreme right of the Republicans and the extreme left of the Democrats vary in their rates of abortion.

As for appointing strict constructionists to supposedly overturn Roe v Wade. That's fantasy land. There is no place to find life beginning at conception for a strict constructionist. The Constitution in no way recognizes that life begins at conception. Matter of fact, based on how it figures representation and such, it's pretty clear that constitutionally, life begins at birth. If life began at birth, it would count them in the census and figuring representation, but it doesn't.

In any case the Justices in Roe v Wade, studied every tradition that went into our Constitution. None, not a single one, had life beginning at conception. The most conservative was the Catholic canon law of the time in which life begin 40 days after conception for boys and 80 days after conception for girls. Since then, Catholics have decided that life begins at conception. But the new tradition doesn't figure into the Constitution. The one of Thomas Aquinas does.

I would suggest not paying too much attention to the version of truth someone who wants to get your vote and money tells you.

I would be interested though in hearing your opinion. If a ban on abortion is not to be just window dressing. Several things would need to be done. First would be the reporting of all positive pregnancy results, and health care workers would also need to be required to report probably pregnancies like they are now for abuse. Also, all women of child bearing age leaving the country would need to be tested for pregnancy so that people couldn't just travel and abort. And all pregnancies not resulting in live births would need to be investigated by the coroner (not necessarily in great depth in most cases) in other words a death would need to be treated like a death.

There is also the problem that procedures like a D & C rely entirely on the word of the doctor as to whether or not it is an abortion. Many abortions are now done and never called an abortion. How would you know whether or not a D & C was an abortion? Require all "tissue" to be forwarded to the coroner?

I just think of when I was young and abortions were illegal and all those prominent Republican families who's daughters left town for a few days for an abortion. Not a single one was ever prosecuted legally very few persecuted socially. Now I doubt if they'd have to do that, many family doctors would "help out" prominent families. At least in the world I live in. Maybe in yours people are all treated the same.

Would you also outlaw birth control pills and other medications because they could be used as abortifacients?

I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Think people would go for that, or should we just pass a law that anyone with sufficient money is just free to ignore? There's some value in that I suppose, but I'd prefer to save lives.

Probably best to pm or start a thread where abortion can be discussed.

Marv

Sounds like a plea to just keep murdering our babies because the alternative is just too messy.

:doh:

[2theBone]

Who says people are murdering babies?

If people were murdering babies, they'd be sent to prison.

Abortionists are not sent to prison.

This is a fact.

[DaRev]

Who says people are murdering babies?

If people were murdering babies, they'd be sent to prison.

Abortionists are not sent to prison.

This is a fact.

And that's the problem. They should be! The murder of innocent children should not be legal in this country. It's an abomination.

[PreachersWife2004]

And that's the problem. They should be! The murder of innocent children should not be legal in this country. It's an abomination.

:amen:

[NordicLutheran]

Hmmmmm.......it was a Lutheran that first used the nasty word.

No reason to criticize the Deist who returned your vile remark.

I hope you have learned to refrain from such in the future.

You brought my age into account. I was just bringing up the fact that a non-trinitarian probably wouldn't believe in life starting at conception.

[NordicLutheran]

Maybe you could explain why the Republicans seem to be missing the vast majority of their Down's syndrom babies? Don't confuse public positions with practice, and what could be more proabortion than having one?

I'm probably a little biased against the Republicans because it's an issue I've followed pretty closely in my own state. When power was somewhat split Republicans made it a very big deal. When Republicans got supermajorities in both our house and senate and the Governorship which has been a decade now. The issue disappeared. Republican were strong supporters of prolife when it came to campaigning and wresting power, but once given the power, they have just pleaded that they are powerless and unable to do anything.

That's a really strange position. Because Roe V Wade said that abortions cannot be restricted in the first trimester, they can be restricted in the second, and they can be outlawed in the third.

Our state hasn't followed that and outlawed third trimester abortions, much less restricted second or even third trimester abortions.

So you see, locally here where I'm most familiar, abortion has been all hat and no cowboy.

When you look at abortion rates, only the so called extreme right of the Republicans and the extreme left of the Democrats vary in their rates of abortion.

As for appointing strict constructionists to supposedly overturn Roe v Wade. That's fantasy land. There is no place to find life beginning at conception for a strict constructionist. The Constitution in no way recognizes that life begins at conception. Matter of fact, based on how it figures representation and such, it's pretty clear that constitutionally, life begins at birth. If life began at birth, it would count them in the census and figuring representation, but it doesn't.

In any case the Justices in Roe v Wade, studied every tradition that went into our Constitution. None, not a single one, had life beginning at conception. The most conservative was the Catholic canon law of the time in which life begin 40 days after conception for boys and 80 days after conception for girls. Since then, Catholics have decided that life begins at conception. But the new tradition doesn't figure into the Constitution. The one of Thomas Aquinas does.

I would suggest not paying too much attention to the version of truth someone who wants to get your vote and money tells you.

I would be interested though in hearing your opinion. If a ban on abortion is not to be just window dressing. Several things would need to be done. First would be the reporting of all positive pregnancy results, and health care workers would also need to be required to report probably pregnancies like they are now for abuse. Also, all women of child bearing age leaving the country would need to be tested for pregnancy so that people couldn't just travel and abort. And all pregnancies not resulting in live births would need to be investigated by the coroner (not necessarily in great depth in most cases) in other words a death would need to be treated like a death.

There is also the problem that procedures like a D & C rely entirely on the word of the doctor as to whether or not it is an abortion. Many abortions are now done and never called an abortion. How would you know whether or not a D & C was an abortion? Require all "tissue" to be forwarded to the coroner?

I just think of when I was young and abortions were illegal and all those prominent Republican families who's daughters left town for a few days for an abortion. Not a single one was ever prosecuted legally very few persecuted socially. Now I doubt if they'd have to do that, many family doctors would "help out" prominent families. At least in the world I live in. Maybe in yours people are all treated the same.

Would you also outlaw birth control pills and other medications because they could be used as abortifacients?

I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Think people would go for that, or should we just pass a law that anyone with sufficient money is just free to ignore? There's some value in that I suppose, but I'd prefer to save lives.

Probably best to pm or start a thread where abortion can be discussed.

Marv


I don't vote democrat because of all the other stuff that comes along with abortions. Stem cell research, Gay marriage, horrible pseudo-communist economics. When looking at it that way if you vote democrat you vote for all of those issues. I will not.

[IowaLutheran]

I horrible pseudo-communist economics. .

When both parties have been in power, the basic system of free market capitalism with a welfare safety net has not been changed regardless of which party has been in power. The general rule is Republicans in power = less government; Democrats in power = more government. The pendulum swings only slightly, though in most cases. Also, when you look at the history of the last 50 years or so, you can find several examples of "conservatism" by Democrats and "liberalism" by Republicans.

JFK/LBJ - JFK proposed a tax cut, which was signed into law by LBJ after the assasination. LBJ had a balanced budget.
Nixon/Ford - Did they roll back LBJ's big government Great Society programs? No, not really - the size of government did not shrink much, if any during their 8 year tenure. Social spending increased and deficit spending increased.
Reagan/Bush I and Bush II - Both signed tax cuts, but was there concomitant fiscal discipline which led to balanced budgets? No, not even close.
Clinton - Signed conservative welfare reform and free trade acts into law, as well as had balanced budgets.

So, if Democrats have pseudo-communist economics , Republicans are pseudo-communist lite.

[2theBone]

And that's the problem. They should be! The murder of innocent children should not be legal in this country. It's an abomination.
I see. You admit that the law does not consider abortion to be murder.

Do you understand how that makes YOU a breaker of the law by slandering (libeling) people who get or perform abortions?

Or are you above the law?

[Mary of Bethany]

Iowa Caucasus - and I always thought the Caucasus was in Russia. ;)

Just bringin' a little levity . . . . . . a very little levity. :P


Mary

[RadMan]

I see. You admit that the law does not consider abortion to be murder.

Do you understand how that makes YOU a breaker of the law by slandering (libeling) people who get or perform abortions?

Or are you above the law?Last time I looked we were accorded free speech by the Constitution. Has that changed?

[DaRev]

I see. You admit that the law does not consider abortion to be murder.

Do you understand how that makes YOU a breaker of the law by slandering (libeling) people who get or perform abortions?

Or are you above the law?

I go by the law of God which clearly says that murder is unlawful. Am I above that? Of course not. Is our govenrment which allows innocent shedding of blood? Obviously they think so.

Am I slandering or am I applying God's truth?

[Edial]

Iowa Caucasus - and I always thought the Caucasus was in Russia. ;)

Just bringin' a little levity . . . . . . a very little levity. :P


Mary
They immigrated to Iowa ... this brings to mind the illegal immigration topic ... :liturgy: :)

Ed :)

[PreachersWife2004]

I see. You admit that the law does not consider abortion to be murder.

Do you understand how that makes YOU a breaker of the law by slandering (libeling) people who get or perform abortions?

Or are you above the law?

When the law of man breaks God law, YES, WE are above the law.

[2theBone]

When the law of man breaks God law, YES, WE are above the law.
According to the Bible you're supposed to obey the laws of men.......and also you are not to bear false witness.

Two things which should keep you from libeling people with your erroneous charge of murder.

How strange that you can twist the Bible to outlaw abortion and yet break two other plain and simple laws while doing that.

:D

[PreachersWife2004]

According to the Bible you're supposed to obey the laws of men.......and also you are not to bear false witness.

Two things which should keep you from libeling people with your erroneous charge of murder.

How strange that you can twist the Bible to outlaw abortion and yet break two other plain and simple laws while doing that.

:D


No, according to the bible we don't have to follow man's law if it breaks God's law. Abortion is murder - there is no false witness there. If I call a doctor who performs abortions a murderer, it is calling him what he is, just like calling a serial killer a murderer is calling him what he is.

The bible calls murder, murder. I am not twisting the bible in any way. You, however, are totally ignoring the bible and prefer to use man's law as your moral compass.

[DaRev]

According to the Bible you're supposed to obey the laws of men

We are to obey God's law. When the law of man contradicts the law of God, we are to follow what God has prescribed.

.......and also you are not to bear false witness.

No one is bearing any false witness.

Two things which should keep you from libeling people with your erroneous charge of murder.

It's not an erroneous charge. It is a truthful statement.

How strange that you can twist the Bible to outlaw abortion and yet break two other plain and simple laws while doing that.

No one has twisted the Bible. The Bible says that we shall not murder. It says that God hates those who shed innocent blood. Stating the facts as they are is not breaking any commandments of God, but rather upholding them.

[2theBone]

LOL.......Did I miss that part of the Bible or should I think that you either wrote your own Bible or you pick and choose what rules you follow?

Do you have any Bible references at all to justify your actions? I'm stumped.

Please tell me you are not that same bunch of people that say God hates homosexuals.

[Edial]

I think abortion is an interesting topic.

It is clearly a murder, since it is a premeditated killing of an innocent human being.

Also, this human being is totally dependant upon the mother for his/her life.
From a secular perspective, she has a sovereign authority over his/her life.

Some say that a baby in a belly is not a "complete" human being.
Well, we could say that he/she is not fully physically structured, or matured as a human being.
Spiritually speaking however, that person can think, fear, feel pain (that's also physical) and even sin.

Also, it is interesting that Job presents there appears to ge a "difference" between a stillborn and the baby that had seen light.

JOB 3:16 Or why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child,
like an infant who never saw the light of day?

It is a complex topic.

The secular world clearly does not understand abortion.

Hey, I was one of the people that told my girlfriend long time ago to have an abortion. So, I lost a child.
I understand it now, but not then.

On one hand we have a mass murder of colossal proportions happening in our own backyard, and at the same time the secular fathers and mothers do not really understand that they are committing murders.

I find this specific manifestation of sin fascinating.

So what is our role in this?

We (Christians) are authorized through the Bible to protect the helpless.
(I cannot find the verse now, but I had it when studying this topic).

Do we protect the helpless through changing the law or through changing the morals of the country?
(In a secular world, once the morals are changed the laws usually follow :)).

I am more and more convinced that stopping abortion is though effecting the morality of the country.
Not dictating, but effecting.
I think it is our Christian responsibility.

And the parents that abort will be judged by God according to their own specific circumstances.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[PreachersWife2004]

LOL.......Did I miss that part of the Bible or should I think that you either wrote your own Bible or you pick and choose what rules you follow?

Do you have any Bible references at all to justify your actions? I'm stumped.

Please tell me you are not that same bunch of people that say God hates homosexuals.


I'd be willing to bet that you didn't miss that part - you just chose to ignore it.

Leviticus 18 is a good place to start where God is talking about man's law versus God's law. Finally, Acts 5:29 sums it up best.

God hates the sin of homosexuality.

[PreachersWife2004]

Ed, you REALLY should turn on your rep feature!

Well written post.

[Edial]

Just found an M next to my name. :doh:
But I have no rights yet. :)

Oh, I see Jim is back with an S next to him name.

Oops, I'm outta here ...

[DaRev]

LOL.......Did I miss that part of the Bible or should I think that you either wrote your own Bible or you pick and choose what rules you follow?

Do you have any Bible references at all to justify your actions? I'm stumped.

Please tell me you are not that same bunch of people that say God hates homosexuals.


Scripture as a whole supports what the Church teaches since the Bible is the source and norm of teaching and practice in the Church.

You want a specific reference?

Proverbs 6:16-19, "There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness whoutters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers."

There's one. Also note the part that says "one who spreads strife among brothers." Perhaps it would do you well to think about that one before you come in here again and try to tell us what to believe.

[2theBone]

I'd be willing to bet that you didn't miss that part - you just chose to ignore it.

Leviticus 18 is a good place to start where God is talking about man's law versus God's law. Finally, Acts 5:29 sums it up best.

God hates the sin of homosexuality.
Your Leviticus and Acts refs have nothing applicable to the question, so I don't get that.

But Romans tells you to obey the laws of men......that would include the laws of libel that you currently ignore by calling abortionists murderers (bearing false witness, of course, falls into play here as well).

Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval;
4 for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority {Gk [it]} does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing.
7 Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Obey the law.

[2theBone]

Scripture as a whole supports what the Church teaches since the Bible is the source and norm of teaching and practice in the Church.

You want a specific reference?

Proverbs 6:16-19, "There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness whoutters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers."

There's one. Also note the part that says "one who spreads strife among brothers." Perhaps it would do you well to think about that one before you come in here again and try to tell us what to believe.
Your Proverbs quote obviously says nothing about abortion.

Sorry for the rebuke, but I'm only following orders from Paul.

1 Timothy 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest also may stand in fear.



This libel thing has got to stop.

God bless you though, and may God open you mind and heart to this truth.

[PreachersWife2004]

Acts 5:29 says we should obey God rather than man. Yes, we are to strive to obey the law of the land, as it was established by God. However, when man's law contradicts God's law, God's law comes first.

Therefore, I choose to obey God in the matter of abortion, not the law. I do not think it is moral to kill an unborn child. Nor do I think it is moral for the government to allow the killing of an unborn child. Nor do I think my tax dollars should go towards the funding of killing an unborn child.

Would you say that if the US decided to impose a two-child rule and started forcing pregnant women to have abortions that we should follow it because it's man's law? I surely hope not.

[DaRev]

Your Proverbs quote obviously says nothing about abortion.

Sorry for the rebuke, but I'm only following orders from Paul.

This libel thing has got to stop.

God bless you though, and may God open you mind and heart to this truth.


So, you believe that those aborted infants are guilty of something? What are they guilty of that deserves the death penalty? I would really like to know your answer to this one.

And I pray that God would open your heart and mind to His truth instead of your own.

[2theBone]

Excuse me......you are asking me questions while simultaneously reporting my posts as being violations.

Just decide whether or not you want me to answer your questions and I will respond or not as you wish.

[DaRev]

Excuse me......you are asking me questions while simultaneously reporting my posts as being violations.

Just decide whether or not you want me to answer your questions and I will respond or not as you wish.

You can't answer the question. I didn't think so.

[PreachersWife2004]

Closing thread for staff review and cool-down period.

[Edial]

Ed, you REALLY should turn on your rep feature!
...
Sometime ago I saw an atheist-type poster having a very high reputation level.
So I figured it doean't really matter, so I turned it off. :)

[Jim47]

Thread is re-opened for discussion.

[RadMan]

Huckabee made a more than better showing. Hillary took a nose dive. 3rd place to be exact. Though the surprise was Huskabee making a strong showing in a primarily democratic state. New Hampshire next.

[PreachersWife2004]

Thanks for re-opening, Jim! I totally forgot to do this before I left.

[porterross]

Our primary isn't until March, so we get to sit back and watch for a bit.

[NordicLutheran]

Huckabee won my precinct and state. WOOOOO! :clap:

[GQ Chris]

It's positive that he's not Liberal :D

but what is his stance on Iraq, does he desire for a withdrawal, because if he does I dont think I can support him.

[Edial]

It's positive that he's not Liberal :D

but what is his stance on Iraq, does he desire for a withdrawal, because if he does I dont think I can support him.
No, he does not.

I did a quick search and found this ...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/huckabee_calls_.html

[rockytrails]

I LIKE Thomson he is prolife
and i don't know what religion he is.
so he propbably won't try to legislate what ever religion he is.

[Jenna]

I tend to lean toward Ron Paul on most issues, except his "solution" for Iraq. I think that an immediate withdrawal of troops could be disastrous. Still, I am a big supporter of limited government, and that isn't really something that I am hearing from any of the other candidates. That said, I don't think that Ron Paul stands a chance at actually getting the nomination. I think that Huckabee will be the guy to beat (in order to get the republican nomination), and I am willing to support him. I'm disappointed that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of education, but he is a politician now. Unfortunately, that is pretty much the norm.

[Edial]

I tend to lean toward Ron Paul on most issues, except his "solution" for Iraq. I think that an immediate withdrawal of troops could be disastrous. Still, I am a big supporter of limited government, and that isn't really something that I am hearing from any of the other candidates. That said, I don't think that Ron Paul stands a chance at actually getting the nomination. I think that Huckabee will be the guy to beat (in order to get the republican nomination), and I am willing to support him. I'm disappointed that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of education, but he is a politician now. Unfortunately, that is pretty much the norm.
Interesting point.

Limited government is a very hard project to accomplish in itself.
This means that the entire structure needs to be reshuffled and streamlined.
Every governing office in this country needs to be addressed. Everything.

There obviously are proposals for a limited government at hand in the White House, so a President does not need to "make one up".

However, the implementation of these would need a special person, the one that has these natural leadership qualities. Everyone needs to want to follow him.
Every Republican wants a limited government, but they realize that such a task is beyond their abilities to implement.

One of my past co-workers who is a strong Democrat once mentioned that he likes Gore.
I asked him: "Why?"
He said: "He is just crazy enough to do what he says".
My co-worker thought that implementation is like pushing an "easy button".

What Gore said made sense however, a crazy person cannot and should not attempt to implement it.

I am not saying Paul is crazy. It was not a purpose of my analogy.
What I am saying is that limited government is not a new idea. One needs a person to implement it.

What I am also objecting to are politicians that are awaying voters with "ideas", yet are clearly not the ones to implement such highly complex projects.

How do I know Paul is not qualified?
He needs cooperation from his peers. He needs to be the one who his peers are looking up to and are willing to follow, since there are many political obstacles in accomplishing even minor projects.

I believe Presidents who delivered what they promised in their careers as politicians.

In a special way I respect Hillary Clinton when she specifically made no mention to change our health care system.
She said we need to change it, but never said she'll do that.
When she was President's wife, it was her project.
She could not accomplish it, because it is simply too hard to implement.

I am writing too much and I guess I made my point already. :)

I do not think Paul is qualified to implement that what he proposes.

Appreciate your post.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[rockytrails]

Whats wrong with voting for Romney?
Around here their are a lot of Mormon's.
I never caught momon fever from any of uhm

I just might vote for him . I just dont trust huckabee.

it seems like we had southern baptist's in the white house before from arkansas.And they sure were not what was advertized .

[DaRev]

it seems like we had southern baptist's in the white house before from arkansas.And they sure were not what was advertized .

Were they conservatives?

[Tofferer]

Were they conservatives?
I can't recall any of them being conservatives.

[synger]

Seriously how can anyone be Lutheran and a democrat at the same time? People who are pro-abortion are filth. There really is no other option for someone who is serious about life and more importantly Christ.
I am a Democrat. My husband is Republican. We've gone over it and over it, and for us, at least, it comes down to this: government responsibility.

I believe that when there are social ills, like poverty and poor education, etc., the government has the duty and responsibility to provide programs to help alleviate those ills. My husband, on the other hand, prefers that the government provide incentives for private businesses that may eventually alleviate those ills.

Because I think the government should "do" more, I'm still a Democrat. My problem comes in when the issues are not so much social and moral/ethical, like abortion.

*sighs*

I'm still a Democrat, primarily on local and state issues. But I've ended up voting Republican for president the last two elections, due to moral and international issues.

So yes, I think one can be "conservative" or "Lutheran" and still be a Democrat.

But then, I'm obviously biased. *grins*

[BabyLutheran]

Dems: Tax and spend vs

Republicans:borrow and spend.

Comes down to the moral issues for me.

[Edial]

Dems: Tax and spend vs

Republicans:borrow and spend.

Comes down to the moral issues for me.
Here is an interesting point, though.

What we borrow is much less what the world owes us in our loans to them.
So the borrowing part is not directly against our own assets.

Taxing the citizens however, is directed against the very hand that feeds the country.

Spending clearly needs to be curbed. However, the scope of our involvement in the world makes it very difficult to do.

There are too many changes in the world. And if one wants to be on top of such changes, one needs to spend.

Soviet Union was reshuffled. China is becoming an economical giant, Middle East is pulsating.

I would say it is a big stakes poker game where we cannot afford to bluff ... so we spend.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Edial]

Whats wrong with voting for Romney?
Around here their are a lot of Mormon's.
I never caught momon fever from any of uhm

I just might vote for him . I just dont trust huckabee.

it seems like we had southern baptist's in the white house before from arkansas.And they sure were not what was advertized .
I cannot vote for Romney due to moral objections.

Mormons plainly believe that the doctrine of Trinity is a satanic doctrine.

This disqualifies him in my book.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

I can't recall any of them being conservatives.

Well, there ya go.

[DaSeminarian]

I think that McCain is a better possibility than Romney. I don't know enough about Huckaby to vote for him yet. If his pockets are being lined by the likes of Pat Robertson then there is no way in God's green or any other color earth that I would vote for him. I think the US should deport Pat Robertson on the grounds that he is just a plain idiot.

[DaRev]

I don't know enough about Huckaby to vote for him yet. If his pockets are being lined by the likes of Pat Robertson then there is no way in God's green or any other color earth that I would vote for him. I think the US should deport Pat Robertson on the grounds that he is just a plain idiot.

Where did you hear this?

[Jim47]

I don't know if I can support Huckabee either. We don't really have a good choice in my opinion.

[porterross]

I think that McCain is a better possibility than Romney. I don't know enough about Huckaby to vote for him yet. If his pockets are being lined by the likes of Pat Robertson then there is no way in God's green or any other color earth that I would vote for him. I think the US should deport Pat Robertson on the grounds that he is just a plain idiot.


If Robertson is like most lobbyists, he has given money to most Republican candidates and will give on a sliding scale to those in the lead, so after the Iowa win, we shouldn't be shocked that most lobby groups are throwing money Huckabee's way. It's the way politics works. :sick:

[DaSeminarian]

If Robertson is like most lobbyists, he has given money to most Republican candidates and will give on a sliding scale to those in the lead, so after the Iowa win, we shouldn't be shocked that most lobby groups are throwing money Huckabee's way. It's the way politics works. :sick:

Robertson ran for the office himself in the primaries of 1988. There has always been something about his character that bothered me and while many Christians from the American Evangelical circles liked him, I found him to be disingenuous. I watched the 700 club a few times since then and he is the most pompous jerk in all of Christendom. His yearly predictions are always about spinning the truth to fit his agenda. He truly doesn't know the truth and he is as bad if not worse than Jim Bakker ever was.

[porterross]

I don't disagree with you, Scott. I'm just saying that I know how the system works and candidates get money from all over the place and if they have any success at all, more special interests donate in the hope of gaining access and influencing the candidate should he/she get elected.

[DaSeminarian]

I don't disagree with you, Scott. I'm just saying that I know how the system works and candidates get money from all over the place and if they have any success at all, more special interests donate in the hope of gaining access and influencing the candidate should he/she get elected.

I am not disagreeing with you either. I have my doubts as to whether Huckaby has the endorsement at this point of Robertson. If so that would be my first clue who not to vote for in a primary.

[porterross]

Robertson endorsed Giuliani, which is contrary to anything conservative and Christian.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21669328/

[DaSeminarian]

Robertson endorsed Giuliani, which is scary.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21669328/

And that no doubt comes from his (Giuliani's) role in 9/11

[porterross]

And that no doubt comes from his (Giuliani's) role in 9/11
That's just silly.

[latebloomer]

I don't put much stock in who won or didn't win the Iowa caucaus. It's like the starting gate of a horse race. A couple of them jumped out of the starting gate a little quicker than others, but the first one out of the gate doesn't always win. Tomorrow in New Hampshire might show us a little more clearly who will be on the ballot in November. We'll have a REAL good idea a month from now what with all the primaries in big states coming up.

Besided the "straw poll" at the caucus, delegates for the county conventions are chosen and anyone who shows up can talk about an issue they feel ought to be discussed. That could be anything from the cost of license plates to environmental regulations to the death penalty or anything else someone can think up. I didn't go. I had to work that night. But it sure would have been interesting to sit in the corner and listen.

[Till]

Clinton wants socialized health care that managed by the government.


She doesn't but what would actually be wrong about it if she did? :confused:

We have that in the UK and regard it as a blessing. Not even the Conservatives dare suggesting to get rid of the National Health Service anymore. Only the rich will vote for them if they do and fortunately in a democracy the rich do not have more votes than the poor. Not any more at least. We are a family of four with only one income and if I would have to pay for health insurance for four heads it would be quite a burden.

I have read many prayer requests on this forum where people have asked for prayer as they cannot afford their medicine anymore. Frankly I think it is a disgrace that such a rich nation as the US is allowing this to happen to its citizen. At the same time the pharmaceutical corporations are making super profits. It seems to me that something is out of balance there.

[Till]

Here is an interesting point, though.

What we borrow is much less what the world owes us in our loans to them.
So the borrowing part is not directly against our own assets.



U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 08 Jan 2008 at 09:06:28 AM GMT is:


$ 9,202,754,158,075.32

The estimated population of the United States is 304,022,750
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,269.95.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.50 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Concerned?



But never mind the icebergs. It is no a problem. This ship cannot sink. ;)

[DaSeminarian]

She doesn't but what would actually be wrong about it if she did? :confused:

We have that in the UK and regard it as a blessing. Not even the Conservatives dare suggesting to get rid of the National Health Service anymore. Only the rich will vote for them if they do and fortunately in a democracy the rich do not have more votes than the poor. Not any more at least. We are a family of four with only one income and if I would have to pay for health insurance for four heads it would be quite a burden.

I have read many prayer requests on this forum where people have asked for prayer as they cannot afford their medicine anymore. Frankly I think it is a disgrace that such a rich nation as the US is allowing this to happen to its citizen. At the same time the pharmaceutical corporations are making super profits. It seems to me that something is out of balance there.

I wouldn't mind it if I thought it would work and everyone would be happy with it. I think the Drug companies lobby against it myself. They would lose money here if we had a National Health plan. It would be nice if these drug companies were actually competing against each other because the cost of drugs would come down. This is why they battled against people going to Canada or Mexico to get their prescriptions. They lose money. If we have a National Health Plan, we would be taxed heavily to pay for it, but the drug companies would have to take whatever price the Government wants to pay them. I don't see it happening here to the degree that Norway, Sweden, Canada or Britain have it now.

[BabyLutheran]

Well right now I pay $900 a month for insurance, don't get anything for it unless I go to the doctor. Then if I go to the doctor, it gives me the privilege of only paying $25 for the visit. Of course I then have to pay $25-50 per month for any prescription I get as well. Then they raise my rates to pay themselves back. It's only worth having insurance if you get really sick.

I doubt my taxes would go up $900 per month if we had a national system.

I am torn on this issue. France has national health care and is considered to be the best health care system in the world. Then you hear horror stories about Canada, Great Britain,etc.

[Till]

I have lived in different (European) countries and have experienced different health systems. In contemplating these different experiences I have come to the conclusion that the most just und cost-effective way to organise health care is through a government-organized national health service.

Sure it feels much better to have a private health insurance and get treated as a valuable customer by the doctor. I had this and it was a nice feeling. But the costs were very high and when looking at it realistically I have to say that all the extra things I got then and do not have anymore now are not necessary. I was not more healthy then. When our first child was born they did ultra-sound images everytime she went to see the doctor. Of course that was nice and reaffirming for my wife but from a medical point of view it was completely unnecessary.

As for the horror stories you have heard about the British system: I heard them as well before I moved there. But I found them exagerated. Health care in the UK is on a very high level and all statistics show that the British are just as healthy as other Western European and North Americans. The system has its problems of course. Especially as it hardly survived the Conservative, Thatherite years. They tried to kill it by underfunding it. Did not succeed though. And it is getting better all the time.

[Edial]

Well right now I pay $900 a month for insurance, don't get anything for it unless I go to the doctor. Then if I go to the doctor, it gives me the privilege of only paying $25 for the visit. Of course I then have to pay $25-50 per month for any prescription I get as well. Then they raise my rates to pay themselves back. It's only worth having insurance if you get really sick.

I doubt my taxes would go up $900 per month if we had a national system.

I am torn on this issue. France has national health care and is considered to be the best health care system in the world. Then you hear horror stories about Canada, Great Britain,etc.
We do pay a lot for health care.
By the way, if one lost a job in NY in the last year one qualifies for some programs where he pays ony about $250 per month.
I needed to do that.

I really care very little when people say that the quality will be less if the system is changed.
I think it is a scare tactic.
Quality lessens when there is corruption and mismanagement, not lower rates.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

What is needed is healthy competition. Socialization just stagnates things.

[BabyLutheran]

I always hear stuff like that, but French health care seems to be pretty darn good. I am sure there must be a down side.

[DaRev]

I always hear stuff like that, but French health care seems to be pretty darn good. I am sure there must be a down side.

I hear their tax rates are astronomical.

[BabyLutheran]

I hear their tax rates are astronomical.
Yeah, but I pay 14% of my gross income just for health insurance, and don't even get much in return.

[DaRev]

Yeah, but I pay 14% of my gross income just for health insurance, and don't even get much in return.

Do you get to choose who your insurance carrier is?

[BabyLutheran]

Do you get to choose who your insurance carrier is?
Self employed, so my little company picks whoever is cheapest.

The big companies and government have a more socialized type of health insurance. I. E. the risk is spread among the group so the sick people pay the same rates as the healthy people.

In the small business world, like our typical example, we have 4 employees, so if anyone gets sick, our rates go up dramatically.

[DaRev]

And if there were healthy competition, you'd be able to shop for the best service for the money. HCP's would be forced to provide quaity service for a decent rate if they want to do business. Socializing medicine eliminates this. The HCP's are allowed to set whatever rates they want, regardless of service, and no one can do anything about it. Socializing healthcare (or anything for that matter) is a horrid idea.

[BabyLutheran]

But my point is, it is socialized in our current system, but only for big company and especially government employees. Anytime the healthy people are subsidizing the unhealthy people, it is socialism

[porterross]

She doesn't but what would actually be wrong about it if she did? :confused:

We have that in the UK and regard it as a blessing. Not even the Conservatives dare suggesting to get rid of the National Health Service anymore. Only the rich will vote for them if they do and fortunately in a democracy the rich do not have more votes than the poor. Not any more at least. We are a family of four with only one income and if I would have to pay for health insurance for four heads it would be quite a burden.

I have read many prayer requests on this forum where people have asked for prayer as they cannot afford their medicine anymore. Frankly I think it is a disgrace that such a rich nation as the US is allowing this to happen to its citizen. At the same time the pharmaceutical corporations are making super profits. It seems to me that something is out of balance there.

The folks I know in UK make use of both NHS and private health services, when they'd rather not wait, and they are being taxed at 45% of income, which is mind-numbing. I don't know how families afford any luxuries, except that their tax burden might be reduced because of their family status.

It seems as only the extremely highly salaried or those fortunate enough to inherent property or investment proceeds ever gain any real wealth, which makes the British middle class even more burdened and harder to classify than that of the US.

[Till]

The folks I know in UK make use of both NHS and private health services, when they'd rather not wait, and they are being taxed at 45% of income, which is mind-numbing. I don't know how families afford any luxuries, except that their tax burden might be reduced because of their family status.

It seems as only the extremely highly salaried or those fortunate enough to inherent property or investment proceeds ever gain any real wealth, which makes the British middle class even more burdened and harder to classify than that of the US.

Ah, you should not believe everything the Scots tell you.

If the deductions on your friends's salary is 45 % that means they have an annual income of 5,000,000 GBP, almost 10 million USD. ;)

In the UK a - a bit less than average - salary of 30,000 GBP (= 59,200USD) would get deduced by about 26%. Income tax plus national insurance. Keep in mind there are no addtional cost for health insurance. Is that astronomical?



Deductions on salaries in France are a bit higher but also far from astronomical. Plus the French also get a lot for their money. Not only very good health care but also for example excellent child care for those who think they need two incomes.


Do not believe the drug industry and health industry lobby when they warn you of socalized health care and scare you by saying your tax will be astronomically high. It is not true. In 2004 I was applying for a job in Phoenix, AZ and almost moved to the US. I did not get the job becaused they did not get the project they wanted my skills for but nevertheless I did already get all the information regarding my salary and the deductions. So I could make a comparison. And the deductions were not much lower than in Europe. When using the medical system however I would have had to pay much, much more myself.

Competition is fine but it does not really work in health care. I used to live in Switzerland where everyone has - has to have! - private health insurance. And the insurers are obliged to accept everyone. Irrespective of their health and history. At least for the basic care. They have to accept everyone AND accept everyone for the same premium. That is a model where competition between the different insurance companies does actually work. But it only works because

a) by law the insurers are obliged to accept everyone and
b) the government has defined by means of a catalogue what is the minimum, basic care that the insurers have to offer to everyone.
c) everyone insured with the one insurer pay the same premium. So it is very easy to compare the different insurance companies' offers.

These are the general conditions which have to be set by government. Otherwise competition does not achieve anything. The insurance companies want to make money and will always avoid risks if they are not being forced to take them.

[LutheranChick]

I am a Democrat. My husband is Republican. We've gone over it and over it, and for us, at least, it comes down to this: government responsibility.

I believe that when there are social ills, like poverty and poor education, etc., the government has the duty and responsibility to provide programs to help alleviate those ills. My husband, on the other hand, prefers that the government provide incentives for private businesses that may eventually alleviate those ills.

Because I think the government should "do" more, I'm still a Democrat. My problem comes in when the issues are not so much social and moral/ethical, like abortion.

*sighs*

I'm still a Democrat, primarily on local and state issues. But I've ended up voting Republican for president the last two elections, due to moral and international issues.

So yes, I think one can be "conservative" or "Lutheran" and still be a Democrat.

But then, I'm obviously biased. *grins*
Sounds like what my hubby refers to as a 'blue dog democrat' - which is what he calls himself. (Although I persuaded him to 'convert' to Republican for 1 night to vote for Huckabee at the caucus!) :)

[porterross]

Ah, you should not believe everything the Scots tell you.

If the deductions on your friends's salary is 45 % that means they have an annual income of 5,000,000 GBP, almost 10 million USD. ;)

In the UK a - a bit less than average - salary of 30,000 GBP (= 59,200USD) would get deduced by about 26%. Income tax plus national insurance. Keep in mind there are no addtional cost for health insurance. Is that astronomical?



Deductions on salaries in France are a bit higher but also far from astronomical. Plus the French also get a lot for their money. Not only very good health care but also for example excellent child care for those who think they need two incomes.



cor....you've gone and done it now! :P

I happen to know for a fact that your figures are not accurate for a single worker in the UK with salaries between 50 and 100K GBP. Still a decent salary, but far from the extreme you've given.

Don't married couples and/or families benefit from a reduced tax on their income in the UK?

[LutheranChick]

I don't put much stock in who won or didn't win the Iowa caucaus. It's like the starting gate of a horse race. A couple of them jumped out of the starting gate a little quicker than others, but the first one out of the gate doesn't always win. Tomorrow in New Hampshire might show us a little more clearly who will be on the ballot in November. We'll have a REAL good idea a month from now what with all the primaries in big states coming up.

Besided the "straw poll" at the caucus, delegates for the county conventions are chosen and anyone who shows up can talk about an issue they feel ought to be discussed. That could be anything from the cost of license plates to environmental regulations to the death penalty or anything else someone can think up. I didn't go. I had to work that night. But it sure would have been interesting to sit in the corner and listen.
Ours wasn't overly exciting - but interesting, even so. Somebody came in and talked for Fred Thompson, had one submission for the party platform and the vote in our precinct was 9 for Romney, 7 for Huckabee, 4 for Thompson, and I think 3 or 4 each for Alan Keyes and McCain. We were all just anxious to cast our votes and go back home. The school (where most of the caucuses were held) was pretty busy that night - HUGE turnout! Oh - and we got on TV! A camera crew from a LaCrosse WI station came in and did some taping and later my stepdaughter called us and said she saw us on the news!

[BabyLutheran]

I still laugh when I see the word caucasus in the title of the thread. The mods should correct it before I go crazy...lol

Here is a link to caucasus on wikipedia. It is a region in Asia between Russia and Turkey. Iowa is not nearby...heheheh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus

[Tofferer]

I still laugh when I see the word caucasus in the title of the thread. The mods should correct it before I go crazy...lol

Here is a link to caucasus on wikipedia. It is a region in Asia between Russia and Turkey. Iowa is not nearby...heheheh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus
Maybe the candidates are on a hunting trip (or perhaps ego trip)????

[Till]

cor....you've gone and done it now! :P

I happen to know for a fact that your figures are not accurate for a single worker in the UK with salaries between 50 and 100K GBP. Still a decent salary, but far from the extreme you've given.

Don't married couples and/or families benefit from a reduced tax on their income in the UK?

I did not mean to offend you. My comment about the Scots was a joke. Even though not a very good one. I like Scottish people.

Anyway, check out the following links
www .hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
www .listentotaxman.com/index.php?calc=1&year=2007&age=0&add=0&taxcode=&period=1&ingr=100000&Submit=Calculate


This is where I got my numbers from. I don't think Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom web site is wrong. And no there are no tax reductions for familys. Just child benefit.

[porterross]

I did not mean to offend you. My comment about the Scots was a joke. Even though not a very good one. I like Scottish people.

Anyway, check out the following links
www .hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
www .listentotaxman.com/index.php?calc=1&year=2007&age=0&add=0&taxcode=&period=1&ingr=100000&Submit=Calculate


This is where I got my numbers from. I don't think Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom web site is wrong. And no there are no tax reductions for familys. Just child benefit.


I wasn't offended, not to worry. :hug:

Trust me on the salary deductions for the range I gave you. A website can put forth numbers all day, but I have to make sense of what's deposited into a bank account and it's not pretty.

[Edial]

But my point is, it is socialized in our current system, but only for big company and especially government employees. Anytime the healthy people are subsidizing the unhealthy people, it is socialism
Good point.

[Edial]

Medical Universities are interested having expensive health care, so their graduates get paid well and they have more students.
And Pharmaceutical industry always jumps at what doctors say, since they are the ones prescribing their specific brands of medicine.

So, it is beneficial for them all to promote anything and everything that would prevent the reorganization of our current healthcare system.

Also, some patients are scared into "losing" their doctors, since they would not take a cheaper plan.

The primary reason why socialized medicine does not work in Communist countries is because its managers do not get paid well. (This also contributes to corruption).
Also, it's goverments do not require as stringent sanitary conditions for the hospitals as we have here.

Here, the wealthy do not mind paying such rates and the poor have Medicaid.

Our Health Care system does not appear to be designed for a middle class.

Thanks,
Ed

[KimLCMS]

New to the thread....
Anyone been watching the debates?

[JoeCatch]

But my point is, it is socialized in our current system, but only for big company and especially government employees. Anytime the healthy people are subsidizing the unhealthy people, it is socialism

Good point.

Nope.

Corporate welfare is not socialist. Socialism is a very specific group of political ideologies that are united by one common feature: worker ownership of the means of production. The tendency to toss around the word "socialism" where it really doesn't apply is one of the most frustrating phenomena in American political discourse. Subsidies are not socialist. A social welfare safety net is not socialist. Calling them socialist is a relic of bygone eras that were typified by anti-communist hysteria; then, as now, labeling something "socialist" was a scare tactic used to discredit whatever the person throwing the term around opposed.

So, whenever anyone calls a government program socialist, ask yourself one question: does the program entail workers' ownership of the means of production with which they make their living? If not, it's not socialist and the person calling it that is selling you a bill of goods.

[Jim47]

Call it what ever you want, its still boils down to socialism.

[DaRev]

Nope.

Corporate welfare is not socialist. Socialism is a very specific group of political ideologies that are united by one common feature: worker ownership of the means of production. The tendency to toss around the word "socialism" where it really doesn't apply is one of the most frustrating phenomena in American political discourse. Subsidies are not socialist. A social welfare safety net is not socialist. Calling them socialist is a relic of bygone eras that were typified by anti-communist hysteria; then, as now, labeling something "socialist" was a scare tactic used to discredit whatever the person throwing the term around opposed.

So, whenever anyone calls a government program socialist, ask yourself one question: does the program entail workers' ownership of the means of production with which they make their living? If not, it's not socialist and the person calling it that is selling you a bill of goods.

"Socialism" is a political system. The former Soviet Union was a socialist system. "Communism" is a economic system. Government control of economics is communistic.

[JoeCatch]

Call it what ever you want, its still boils down to socialism.

False. But I've already explained as clearly as I can why subsidized health care isn't socialism and calling it that is just a meaningless pejorative. Feel free to continue to do so if you like, but be warned that those who know what socialism actually is and don't just toss the word around as a derisive term for that with which they disagree will only think less of you for it.

"Socialism" is a political system. The former Soviet Union was a socialist system. "Communism" is a economic system. Government control of economics is communistic.

Not quite. Socialism is, as I said, an economic system of worker-owned means of production. Common ownership of the means of production is also a feature of communism, the primary difference being that communism is stateless. Socialism doesn't necessarily advocate for any particular political system, though most forms of socialism are democratic in nature when it comes to the way that people are organized politically. . But both socialism and communism take roughly the same view of economics, so it's not really correct to say that one is political and the other is economic. They're both economic systems (defined broadly by adherence to Marxian economic principles), and they're both political systems (defined within socialism usually as some sort of democracy and within communism as a stateless society).

There's absolutely nothing communistic about government control of the economy; clearly there can't be because in a truly communist society there is no government of which to speak. Aside from that, virtually every school of economics advocates some degree of government intervention in the economy (Keynesian, neoclassical, Marxian, heterodox, etc.). The Chicago and Austrian schools are pretty much the only ones that don't, and they're in the minority among professional economists. The Chicago school lost its luster after its ideas destroyed Chile's economy back in the 1980s, and the Austrian school's highly axiomatic nature and hostility to empirical methods put it at odds with every other school of economics for the entire 20th century and continues to do so today. Besides that, state capitalism puts the economy under the near-total control of the government (i.e., more so than virtually any other economic system), and state capitalism and communism really have nothing to do with each other. There is absolutely nothing communistic about government control of, or intervention in, the economy.

[DaRev]

I stand corrected.

[Edial]

False. But I've already explained as clearly as I can why subsidized health care isn't socialism and calling it that is just a meaningless pejorative. Feel free to continue to do so if you like, but be warned that those who know what socialism actually is and don't just toss the word around as a derisive term for that with which they disagree will only think less of you for it.



Not quite. Socialism is, as I said, an economic system of worker-owned means of production. Common ownership of the means of production is also a feature of communism, the primary difference being that communism is stateless. Socialism doesn't necessarily advocate for any particular political system, though most forms of socialism are democratic in nature when it comes to the way that people are organized politically. . But both socialism and communism take roughly the same view of economics, so it's not really correct to say that one is political and the other is economic. They're both economic systems (defined broadly by adherence to Marxian economic principles), and they're both political systems (defined within socialism usually as some sort of democracy and within communism as a stateless society).

There's absolutely nothing communistic about government control of the economy; clearly there can't be because in a truly communist society there is no government of which to speak. Aside from that, virtually every school of economics advocates some degree of government intervention in the economy (Keynesian, neoclassical, Marxian, heterodox, etc.). The Chicago and Austrian schools are pretty much the only ones that don't, and they're in the minority among professional economists. The Chicago school lost its luster after its ideas destroyed Chile's economy back in the 1980s, and the Austrian school's highly axiomatic nature and hostility to empirical methods put it at odds with every other school of economics for the entire 20th century and continues to do so today. Besides that, state capitalism puts the economy under the near-total control of the government (i.e., more so than virtually any other economic system), and state capitalism and communism really have nothing to do with each other. There is absolutely nothing communistic about government control of, or intervention in, the economy.
I am impressed.
Are you student of this topic?